"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Send Help

Sam Raimi is back! With a new movie. Not one of his best, but hey – we got a new Sam Raimi movie. SEND HELP was brought to him by screenwriters Damian Shannon & Mark Swift (FREDDY VS. JASON, FRIDAY THE 13TH 2009), but it follows part of the DRAG ME TO HELL template in that it’s about a timid woman who doesn’t fit in and gets overlooked and mistreated by the sexist assholes at her corporate job, then finds her inner viciousness to be able to compete with them. A difference is that in the earlier film the horror scenario comes as punishment for the shitty thing she does to get ahead. This one is about how getting stranded on an island with her asshole boss becomes her opportunity to unleash her mean side.

Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams, PASSION) has worked for seven years as a corporate strategist, though her new boss thinks she’s an accountant. The previous CEO promised her a promotion to vice president, but then he died and his son Bradley Preston (Dylan O’Brien, AMERICAN ASSASSIN) took over. To Linda’s shock he gives the promotion to Donovan (Xavier Samuel, THE LOVED ONES, Bernard Rose’s FRANKENSTEIN), an idiotic Patrick Bateman type who’s pretty new there, steals credit for her work and happens to have been Bradley’s frat brother.

Although this is edited by Raimi’s long time collaborator Bob Murawski it feels like a slower pace than he usually prefers, and in particular the awkward workplace section is unusually drawn out. Its humor is maybe sort of in the oddball mode of Aunt May trying to get the free toaster in SPIDER-MAN 2, but to me not nearly as funny. Linda is cartoonishly nerdy in obvious ways (ugly clothes, bad complexion), random ways (for some reason brags about her ugly old shoes, spends her evenings talking to a bird), and gross ways (doesn’t know she has a chunk of tunafish on her face when she’s delusionally trying to charm the new boss). The latter at least inspires some trademark Bill Pope camera show-offery (one of the parts that’s probly pretty cool in the 3D version).

I didn’t even think about that Raimi already directed McAdams in DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS. Instead I thought it was cool that she has starred in movies directed by Wes Craven and Sam Raimi, both thrillers involving airplanes. I think Craven’s movie was a little more of a natural fit for her because it starts like a romantic lead and then subverts that. Here it starts off with her already playing against type as a nerd, before subverting the nerd.

Of course I side with poor mistreated Linda, but the movie really tests the limits of how unappealing you can get away with making your underdog hero. These guys at the office are horrible, and it’s painful to watch her repeatedly humiliate herself in front of them. I do really like the touch that although the men definitely treat her that way because she’s a woman it’s clear that the women there don’t like her either. When she tries to bond with co-worker River (Emma Raimi) her joke completely bombs and River gives her a withering “why are you talking to me” look.

Bradley wants to transfer Linda to a different office, but a senior executive (Dennis Haysbert, SUTURE, basically a cameo) convinces him they need her on a trip to Bangkok to secure a merger. Then their private jet malfunctions and crashes near a small island near Thailand. Linda survives, finds Bradley washed up on shore with a leg injury, builds a shelter for him, brings him food and water. I guess in the end they both got transferred to a different office.

There’s obviously a MISERY aspect to it, but maybe also THE REF? Oh, actually it’s just a less class conscious take on the last part of TRIANGLE OF SADNESS, isn’t it? Bradley can’t walk or do anything, Linda saved him and is keeping him alive, but he feels perfectly comfortable criticizing her, talking down to her, putting her forgiveness and kindness to the test. As he heals there’s a comical back and forth where he gets mad and tries to strike out on his own but is clearly out of his element. He can barely tie two palm leaves together but she’s weaving beautiful hats and thatched roofs, catching and cooking fish, eventually preparing elaborate dishes of sushi, caviar and fresh mango, laid out beautifully. Presentation is very important for castaway meals.

I particularly love the detail that she carved her name into the bamboo cup she drinks water out of. I don’t know if that’s like having a customized mug or like writing your name on a plastic cup at a party, but either way it’s great. Also it’s a good twist on the mousy-girl-lets-her-hair-down-and-she’s-gorgeous cliche that being stranded on an island and having to kill animals to survive makes Linda start to look hot. Bradley even admits it.

I did think it was too on-the-nose that the reason she’s so good at this is because she’s really into Survivor. I mean maybe if it was the band Survivor it would be cool, but this is the reality show. She watches the show with her bird at the beginning, and when the accident happens the men on the jet are making fun of her Survivor audition video. (Good font choices on the video, by the way.) It seems kind of “I learned to shoot from playing Xbox“ to me. And honestly if she learned everything she knows from Survivor that’s another reason why if there were any cool people at work they wouldn’t want to hang out with her either.

For me there are many things in this movie that just don’t click, but then there are those stretches of pure Raimi exhilaration. It’s not like FOR LOVE OF THE GAME where nobody would guess it was a Raimi movie. There’s plenty of goofy humor, several acts of violence that go the extra mile to spookablast you in the face, a little bit of camera fun, a good reference to Bruce Campbell that I won’t give away. And he’s got the band back together – Murawski, Pope, even composer Danny Elfman (despite allegations).

The first out loud laugh for me and others at the 2 pm Thursday matinee was during the plane crash. I’d noticed Donovan’s penchant for wearing suspenders, wondered if it was a little bit dated fashion, maybe a reference to OFFICE SPACE, turns out to be set up for spectacular Raimi slapstick. Another obvious highlight is when Linda decides to hunt a wild boar, a scene that follows Raimi’s “you must taste blood to be a man” dictum both literally and figuratively. Killing it takes longer than it would in most movies and the thing definitely pukes more blood in her face than I expected.

So I was entertained, but I’m afraid I struggled with some of the turns it takes. It starts out fitting into an obvious, agreeable theme: Linda is smarter and harder working than everyone around her, but they pass her by because she’s a woman and a little older and socially awkward. Now in this castaway situation the tables have turned, she has all the power over her asshole boss, and we enjoy seeing his comeuppance, maybe even seeing her abuse that power a little.

Okay. And then there’s a funny/uncomfortable twist in that (twist spoiler) Linda is so much better at and happier in this island life that she’s clearly resisting, even purposely avoiding, chances to get rescued. Eventually, like Bill Paxton in A SIMPLE PLAN, her desperation leads to crossing a line into unforgivable immorality. (SPOILER: She straight up murders two totally innocent people!)

A part of me enjoys how upsetting this is, how it messes with me by asking me to consider switching my sympathies to Bradley, a guy who absolutely sucks, who I definitely don’t have to hand it to, even though it’s now known that he (like Linda) has been a victim of abuse. But another part of me can’t help but ask what this is saying. That actually if you think about it the mistreated workers are worse than their shithead nepo-baby overlords? Or at least that they’re similarly bad? A both sides situation? Maybe it’s being subversive, taking a softball underdog formula and turning it on its head. But I just don’t think that’s one that needs to be subverted, personally.

Now, I’m not saying that a protagonist needs to be moral, or even likable. I don’t believe that at all. Maybe the main thing I love about DRAG ME TO HELL is that the main character Christine is very flawed. She does the wrong thing to impress her boss at work, and suffers a curse for it. Then, in trying to break the curse, she repeatedly does more wrong things, up to and including (SPOILER FOR DRAG ME TO HELL) when she kills a kitten. Maybe SEND HELP is trying to make the same move here, but the context is very different. Not only is the body count higher, but she’s just trying to prolong an unnatural living situation, as opposed to trying to avoid literally burning in hell.

And on second thought maybe it does work better for characters to be “likable” despite their flaws. You could describe DRAG ME TO HELL and SEND HELP both as mean, but they’re mean in different ways. DRAG ME TO HELL is mean because it punishes Christine so harshly for her sins, SEND HELP is mean because it lets Linda turn into a monster and get away with it. I have so much sympathy for Christine, even after she’s crossed those moral lines. There’s something very humane about that. People are flawed, you can still sympathize with them. But Linda I guess I don’t really like that much, I don’t really sympathize with her as much as feel sorry for her, and then she makes a strong case that I shouldn’t even do that.

I do think this character is meant to be relatable, and maybe there’s just some specific charisma thing I’m not getting here that I need for that to work on me. It’s not about virtue. Pearl in the movie PEARL is so much crazier and more evil than Linda, and I still feel the instinct to defend that messy bitch. She’s just trying to stand up for herself!

So for me it really felt like Raimi was blowing it in that last act. But it’s pretty funny to watch these two beat the living shit out of each other, and then all the sudden they pull off an ending that made me laugh, made me mostly accept all that. Like a gymnast landing wobbly but miraculously staying upright. Almost more impressive than landing neatly.

I wish I loved this like I do most of Raimi’s movies. Other people seem to, so don’t let me scare you off. Maybe it will grow on me.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 2nd, 2026 at 7:10 am and is filed under Reviews, Comedy/Laffs, Horror, Thriller. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

20 Responses to “Send Help”

  1. It kind of feels like the bloat in the middle is trying to wedge in that she was always messed up and already has some blood on her hands beyond what happened on the plane (I wouldn’t bet against that drunken confession night being the reshoots in the Dominican; it’s dark and kind of shot in a way that it doesn’t necessarily have to match the other beach perfectly), but it’s kind of wobbly.

  2. Just one point regarding “if she learned everything show knows from Survivor”. At the start of the film the camera pans across her apartment where we see piles of survival handbooks, and holiday photos which show she’s already made trips to various wild foreign locations. So she has plenty of knowledge and first hand experience and just uses the tv show as a vicarious experience, not a primary source.

  3. SPOILERS, PROBABLY:

    This is my favorite Raimi picture since SPIDER-MAN 2 or 3. I would categorize it as a thrillablast, since there’s really only the one spooky part. The opening scenes were a little too cringey for me, and there are a couple moments where the narrative sags a bit, but every time I started to get antsy, the movie would take a wild swing. It keeps tricking you into thinking it’s one kind of movie before suddenly becoming another, and it’s very purposefully shifting your sympathies from one character to the other and back again. Because it’s Raimi, he keeps pushing that envelope and sneaking in gruesome little gags. He’s delighting in keeping you off-balance, and sometimes it’s because you slipped in a pool of bodily fluids.

    I also saw it as an inverse, of sorts, of DRAG ME TO HELL. That one was about a seemingly good woman who makes an error in judgment and suffers more and more. This one is about a woman self-actualizing into a worse and worse person, and yet being rewarded for it. I thought McAdams handled the character shifts well. O’Brien is really channeling Bruce Campbell here, and mostly succeeding!

    I did happen to catch it in 3D. I usually prefer two dimensions, but it was solid. For one thing, I think they opened up the frame to 1:85 for it. And there were some clever little touches– the way they used 3D to make the diamond ring pop stood out to me.

  4. simon beat me to it re: learning everything from books and experience, and not the “Survivor” program itself. So instead here’s the full uncut version of her audition tape I found online: https://youtu.be/MQuGoKINTOQ?si=CcXGTclKa65EMfDs

    Props for the THE REF reference, Vern. It’s a film I wish would get brought up as often as DIE HARD around Christmas time. But Disney has practically memory-holed it, and Spacey in a major role doesn’t help matter much, either.

  5. I haven’t seen this, yet, so maybe the movie makes a greater point about this, but I do want to disagree a bit with this: “But another part of me can’t help but ask what this is saying. That actually if you think about it the mistreated workers are worse than their shithead nepo-baby overlords? Or at least that they’re similarly bad?”

    The movie doesn’t have to be SAYING ANYTHING about every other living, real person who has these roles. If what she does in the movie doesn’t work narratively and it throws things off, then it doesn’t work, but in my opinion NOT because her character’s exposed psychopathy is saying that beleaguered workers are all universally monsters. It’s just THIS character that’s a monster! She doesn’t have to represent every single mistreated worker, you know?

    But anyways I love me some Raimi (like James Gunn, he’s a guy who has a lot of weird, tonal misses for me within their work but I still love the wackiness and personalization of their genre efforts that I’m always more on board than off) and I’m really interested in checking this one out.

  6. Actually, that link I posted is for an alternate cut of the video. It’s missing a couple of things while adding some new ones. Linda’s trainer talking to the camera is sorely missed.

  7. I agree with this review almost entirely. Raimi and the writers set it up as a workplace vengeance dark comedy, and then it just doesn’t deliver on that and becomes a fairly classist (sorry, that’s my reading) “actually, we’re all monsters” thing. Great? And yeah, the middle stretch does feel aimless.

    There are some fun elements, though. I really liked the first cliffside scene and some trademark filmmaking touches, but was excited for something more than this.

  8. Maybe it’s because I’m so used to Raimi stories being these (tragically or comically) brutal morality fables, it’s so bracing and weird to see him go in this openly depraved, nihilistic direction where the hero is a bad guy who wins. Maybe it just feels like a break in formula–the guilty do not suffer! What the hell, Sam??

    At least it’s really fun to watch, at least for me, because Rachel McAdams is making such a feast out of the layers and choices of this character. I sorta cannot take my eyes of Linda Liddle, callous motherfucker that she is. Just like Sam has never had a moral universe work this way, I also don’t think he’s ever had a protagonist quite like this. If Christine Brown had shared DNA with Peter Parker, does Linda Liddle have shared DNA with Eddie Brock? Someone who warmly embraces corruption because they’re just so eager to have power?

    I appreciate you addressing the Elfman in the room. He (and whatever team of people are actually co-composing his scores, may God be with them) is perfectly functional at his job, and I understand that some of Sam’s most distinctive movies were made as sight-and-sound collaborations with Elfman, but it’s really really uncomfortable to see him continuing to pop up on these things. It occurred to me that this movie would have been a really fun canvass for Christopher Young, whose sensibilities are as perfect of a match for Raimi’s. Basically, I hope Sam is here to stay but Elfman isn’t.

  9. I thought this one ruled. Bunch of laugh out loud moments and a further evolution of Raimi-Gags. Even better, I was concerned it was going to be a predictable corporate satire and instead it got to where I didn’t exactly know where it was going. Add to that a totally game crowd; Great time at the movies.

  10. zikade – See, I think it absolutely is saying something, whether it intends to or not, because it 100% deliberately pulls us in with “these fuckin nepo baby tech bro douchebag bosses are assholes, and they treat women like this,” and we know the truth of what they are parodying, and we (to the extent that it works) root for her and against him exactly because we know which side we’re on in the real world. But what I’m trying to express in the review here is my thought process while watching the movie and how the ending sort of won me back.

    Bill – I really should’ve seen it in 3D. I wanted to but I also wanted to see it early in the day when it was only playing 2D.

  11. This one was really touch-and-go for me. The first 20 minutes had me wondering if I’d made a big mistake seeing this at all. I do not have the stomach for broad parody of corporate douche culture, and couple that with the most high-test cringe humor I’ve subjected myself to in at least a decade and I found myself watching the first 20 minutes through my fingers like a fraidycat watching a SAW movie. It took a while for ny nervous system to settle down and let me trust the movie, and I’m not 100% sure I ever fully recovered. I kept suspecting the movie was going to attempt to switch my sympathy to the douchebag boss, and that was never gonna happen. Linda sucks and I wouldn’t want to hang out with her but l I’ll take a murderer over an executive any day. She could have slaughtered his whole family and fed them to him chunk by chunk and I’d still be on her side by default.

    But the grossouts were suitably Raimian (best vomiting gag since TEAM AMERICA) and the twist and turns, while predictable, kept me engaged. At the end of the day, it’s just nice to see Raimi still out there doing his thing.

    As for the ultimate message, I guess it’s what Linda said on the beach: Monsters are made. You can’t treat people like people treat Linda and expect them to play nice. I don’t know if that thesis really holds water in this particular circumstance but it adds up in an EC Comics sort of way, which is, I think, how the morality in all of Raimi’s movies works.

  12. Great review, and I particularly like the way you explore your dislike of the McAdams character and what might be driving it, and more generally the way we sometimes experience more sympathy/empathy/connection toward some characters who do monstrous things than we do for others.

  13. You know, if you squint a little, Linda kind of fits into the same heroic paradigm as Ash: She sucks at absolutely everything EXCEPT the thing the movie’s about, and that makes her the hero. Ash is a coward, a braggart, a misogynist, and an idiot, but when it comes to full-body dismembering the Evil Dead, he’s the champ. Linda is gross, clueless, annoying, delusional, and psychotic, but she’s great at surviving on a deserted jungle island. Audiences tend to value competence over morality. (Clint Eastwood made a career out of this.) It might all be an extension of Hitchcock’s rule of thumb that a filmgoer will sympathize with any character, no matter how loathsome, as long as he’s good at his job. Linda, despite her many faults, is very good at her job, and thus is granted leniency by the otherwise iron-clad, Old Testament justice of the Raimi moral code.

  14. I found the script to be way too cartoony and clumsy in a way I think hurts the movie, especially that rough stretch at the beginning before the couple are stranded. Here’s how miscalculated I found the whole thing: Brady was correct in not giving Linda the VP role, and he even gives some good reasons for it to her; The woman is an absolute social disaster, and the film leans into it hard. Fuck you, movie, for making me agree with the parasite caste.

    So when she turns out to be a psycho, it didn’t seem to be a huge betrayal of a ‘message’ or anything. It’s just a cynical, evil, pulpy yarn. I do absolutely agree with Mr. Majestik that the message, such as it is, is that she’s the monster he (and prior abuse she’s suffered) created. I’d still side with her any day of the week against the guy (I was so annoyed they chickened out of the… rat scene) but it’s not like the film ever succeded in making me sympathize with her as a character either, other than by the situation she’s in. There’s a theme I think was pretty mishandled, which is her attraction or even love for him (which could be a little too dark, given her past abuse) – I mean, it’s definitely there, but it’s not well developed at all.

    Also – for a while there I was sure that there was a resort on the other side of the island, and that Brady and Linda would end up cutting each other to ribbons in front of horrified tourists. So I found the actual ending underwhelming; The movie wasn’t dark enough for me, I guess is what I’m saying.

    Other than that… yeah, it’s fun. Some great acting from both McAdams and O’Bryen, some fun, ridiculous scenes, and an agreeable willingness to go over the top. I dislike how Raimi uses CGI, but them’s the breaks. On the other hand he’s still wildly inventive, full of energy, and totally trying to shock/disgust you.

  15. sympathy is reserved for and expressed to other human beings; the characters in a fictional narrative by definition cannot garner my sympathies because they’re not actual human beings and the situations they’re in aren’t real.

    a fictional narrative requires me to grant a measure of empathy to the authors who created it, knowing as i do that i am suspending my disbelief in order for them to share with me a portion of their understanding of the human condition. to that end i know that imparting moral judgment upon fictional characters serves me no personal utility, and an author doesn’t need to do any work to get me to ‘like’ a character

    the EC influence in raimi’s work is undeniable, but speaking only for myself, i don’t remember anyone else being so vocal about making the comparison as devin faraci was back when drag me to hell came out and contemporaneous online film bro discourse centered around whether the film was too mean to its central character. i mention his name not to disparage him but because after reading this review and the subsequent comment section i was reminded of him, and that in turn reminded me of the confrontational mannerisms for which he became celebrated during his time spent as a public figure, and that then led me to ruminate about the ways in which i subsumed many of those same attitudes over the years, consciously or unconsciously, as a result of reading not only his work but also that of plenty of other similarly noxious and outspoken voices.

    a nihilistic bent to this story would likely see both characters recognizing the futility of their situation and awaiting death. the cynic’s version would see them recognizing that continuing to survive outside of society is ideal for them. we can say it’s a pessimistic story. pessimism isn’t a matter of saying “glass half empty,” it’s “all humans will at one point be in possession of a completely empty glass; how can we minimize that?”

    for me this was very effective satire because the pangs of self-recognition arrived frequently and ran deep, engendered at various times by both leads. how can i minimize the suffering i’m capable of inflicting upon the world around me? seeing aspects of my own character reflected and distorted funhouse mirror style, such as they are here, can serve as a powerful corrective.

    i’ve reached middle age which means that many of the artists i grew up admiring are now dying with ever greater frequency. sam raimi has been directing films longer than i’ve been alive and i’m so grateful that he’s still with us and hasn’t lost his fastball and has made another film that resonated with me so much, one that i can confidently say ranks among his best. i can’t believe i’m now anticipating whatever else the writers of freddy vs jason and baywatch (movie) may have up their sleeves, but here we are. between this and The Housemaid i appreciate that two of the mean girls from the movie mean girls have graced us with new iconic roles, and between this and Twinless i appreciate dylan o’brien’s continued commitment to cinematic excellence, ‘excellence’ here defined as ‘tasteful partial nudity’

  16. This movie is my shit. I don’t think it has a moral or a hero — it’s just more of a character study about turning points, breaking points and how one’s survival and position are a matter of context, luck, and what you are willing and able to do when tested or tempted.

    Linda is the lead and protagonist but not the hero (I don’t really think anti-hero applies, but we could debate semantics). She goes through a series of traumas and breaking points that teach her that nature and people can be be cruel and unfair, has a serious brush with death, gets the opportunity to live her best life, and decides after all of that (epiphany)—fuck it, this world is a bitch, people are treacherous and cruel and will dominate and exploit you if you let them; so, starting now, I’m going to exercise interpersonal agency and stop finishing last. She’s going to fight for what she wants instead of letting everyone else eat her lunch (insert tuna joke here). Also she’s a little kooky to begin with. It’s like a very nihilistic inverted version of Rocky’s “ain’t about how hard you hit” speech.

    So, it’s a character study, meditation on the problem of evil and the cruelty of others. She’s a survivor, and she’s through taking shit. Is she morally justified or righteous? No, I would say. But neither were any of the guys on the plane or her husband (if she’s a reliable narrator?!), or her office neighbors. No more Ms. Nice Guy: everyone around her is ruthless and pitiless, so she’s going to out-ruthless them.

    So, I don’t think the film is in the business of promulgating an ethical sysem or delivering cosmic justice. To that end, I don’t think it’s justifying Linda’s behavior. It’s not justifying anything. It’s telling a story.

    The moral for Linda? She wins and does it her way, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because she decided to and made it happen. It’s a film about agency and choices. She seizes hers, becoming an actor, not just an acted-upon.

    The moral for Bradley? fuck around with Linda—again, and again, and again — and find out.

    The moral for all of us? It’s a jungle out their. Keep your head on a swivel, and make choices you can live with.

  17. There, not their damnit.

  18. One thing I found interesting about this movie was that Linda’s breaking point happened before they got to the island. It was when they were on the plane and she saw everyone making fun of her audition submission for Survivor and so she deleted the work she had been doing that was going to save the project they were on their way to work on. It makes me wonder if she hadn’t reached that point before the island, would that have changed things? Would she have been more inclined to continue to swallow his abuse and arrogance to save them both? I’m not sure, but it’s interesting that it was the civilized world that broke her, not the savage island. You could say the civilized world broke her and the savage island rebirthed her. Or she just realized there’s no difference between the two, which is why afterward she was better able to navigate through “civilization” successfully.

  19. Great observations, and well-said.

  20. I’m hoping this leads Raimi to do more mid-budget movies where he can cut loose.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>